Unbelievers - You're dead and before God on Judgement Day

[Guest]

Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

Micah 6:7-8

[MorningGlory]

Don`t get me wrong. I don`t have a specific agenda against christianity, as a religion. Frankly, I would not care much, what people believe, as long as it does not puts me or them in direct danger.

However, with the pervasiveness inherent to christianity in last few years, I feel the need to protect my own domains and my own conclusions from what is not proven to me.

Taking into account my specific traits, my problem with modern christianity goes further, then simple "I think you preache a load of bull.". It`s more of - "What you say is very dangerous... And I would like to know more - so I could stop you, if it comes to blows."

Honestly, I do not know, how any of you would address that.

I'm a little confused as to what you mean about the pervasiveness inherent to Christianity in the past few years. It has been pervasive for two millenia. I believe English to be a second language for you so maybe it's a difference in phraseology. I have to tell you the truth though, Ishamael; Christianity isn't a danger to you and there is NO way to stop the Truth or the Lord.

[Ishamael]

Alright, let`s address the things one by one.

Cobalt: To answer you... What I am is pretty much incompatible with christianity, as it is presented now. While I do admit, that Jesus had a lot of sound ideas, I firmly disagree with "If you are struck on one cheek, turn forth another.", for example. Instead - "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

To put it simply, if I were to try and convert to christianity, AS IT WAS PRESENTED TO ME, I would have to betray all that I stand for. Such dishonor is not acceptable.

If I were asked by Jesus, why don`t I accept him as god... I`d ask - "Why did you do that, at Shalazi pass? Why did you have to do that?"

Undone: Question is a bit more complicated, then you imagine it to be.

Namely, I myself can offer some valid reasons for christianity. That does not absolves christianity from all the contradictions I`ve seen and read about.

As I said, I would gladly discuss, but there is much more then simple "Why believe?", that I would ask, and I would need much more answers then "Because Jesus loves you."

I need logical reasons for everything. Logical and valid reasons, why it has to be SO, and not other way. And I need someone with really open mind, if you want a discussion. Many a time I would suggest cynical and "ungodly" reasons for bible lore and christian actions - unless it can be handled without personal umbrage, I`d rather not even start.

Glory: I was born in USSR. Aka, brought up and lived in atheistic country. For me, christianity began to be pervasive only in last years. And frankly, I do NOT like people, who deem it right to lecture me in my OWN home about how sinful I am, when I did not invited them in in the first place.

Oh... By the way, under pervasiveness, I mean personal annoyment factor. I used to live all my childhood across the street from the church, and it never bothered me. But when I have people barge in on me, and taking offence, when I say I do NOT want them to yell at me in my own home, I have to bodily toss them out.

[undone]

Ishamael,

I'd be interested in your thoughts on the formal debate titled "Is there an intelligent metaphysical beginning" between AskAnAtheist and Apothanein Kerdos (often referred to as AK) found in the Soapbox Debate forum just below Apologetics on the main page.

[Ishamael]

Here or there?

If it`s a formal debate between them, I`d rather not intrude.

[undone]

Here or there?

If it`s a formal debate between them, I`d rather not intrude.

It was completed several months ago so it is closed and thus only available for reading. I'm particularly interested in your thoughts on what AK is saying in his arguments. You can post your thoughts here on this thread.

[Ishamael]

MMkay.

I`ve read through the discussion, and I must say, that both opponents presented fallacious arguments. (On a side note, I think that argument was biased, and the fact, that atheist opponent is banned does not adds any glitter, either.)

There is no such thing as absolute morals, nor there is such thing as evolutionary morals.

Correct would be to examine morals from psychological way.

Most of morals are social constructs based on the simple premise - "Don`t do onto others what you would not want to be done onto you."

This is an explanation, why murder within a socium is usually considered a bad thing, for example. When criminal murders someone within own socium, other members of socium persecute the criminal out of fear, that they will be next victims. Thus, to prevent that, they punish the aggressor.

Same thing applies for a rape. In all fairness, rape is not gender-defined crime. One can rape members of both genders, per wish. However, majority of socium members have no wish to be raped, and therefore, they persecute criminal to prevent possibly getting raped.

Ditto with stealing.

______

However, I would like to note, that all those morals are applied strictly within sociums. Verily, different sociums often actively encourage murder, rape and theft from other sociums - the event called war.

______

Looking above, we see three most "universal" crimes. I`ll have to note, though, that murder and robbery were developed much earlier, then rape. Indeed, those both were mostly verboten even in prehistorical times, while rape had been practiced in one form or another until the modern days.

Note, that Bible does not forbids rape, per ce. It forbids cheating - but is tactfully omits the issues of independant women taken by force. Also, take a note many issues of father being referred as the person in charge of daughter`s body. In modern day, that would be considered child neglect, parental abuse and accomplicement to rape.

______

Universal nature of such morals is disproved by the fact of war. Indeed, sociums encourage murder, rape and theft, and hail people committing it as heroes, when those are committed against other sociums.

Biological nature of such morals is disproved by the fact, that they are socially-psychological constructs, not instincts. Animals have no such constructs, and their actions are closer tro survival, then morals would be (Upon examination, it can be seen, that different species of animals exhibit behavior similar to morals, but this is not consistent throughout whole mammal kingdom, let alone other creatures.). Verily, moral is an abstract concept - and animals do not possess abstract thinking, as far as it is known.

[Ishamael]

Eh.

Sorry.

Socium would mean a group of people, who are united by cohabitation, collaboration and common sets of laws.

Prime example would be a country or nation. Another would be a church.

In my example I`ve been referring mostly to separate nations.

[Ishamael]

Well...

Shalazi pass... It`s something personal. Suffice to say, that I am sure that no benevolent god would`ve allowed that to happen. No matter what.

As for culture gap... It`s one of my reasons, why`d I show up here in first place. My contacts with christians so far had proved to be less then civil, and I`m trying to determine, if christianity as a society is a lost cause, or christians could be negotiated with - at least some of them.

____

As for your suggestion. Yes. There MUST be black&white social norms to ensure, that society does not regresses into anarchy. However, there is MORE then one society around the world, and each society has own set of norms to uphold.

Thus, there is no universal moral norm - your morals might be rejected in society, which adheres to different standards.

Once again - war is a prime example of such conflict. Two societies, which can not come up with some compromise consensus regarding their social norms will reject ALL morals to enforce their law. The old "cause justifies the means" principle.

This is why the idea of universal morals is flawed. Because everyone has own idea about what universal morals should be.

Social norm is a legislative manifestation of average sum of this particular society personal moral beliefs, no more, no less.

____

There are numerous attempts to make such coexistance at least tolerable for everyone, but it`s not easy. There`s always someone who "knows better".

[Ishamael]

I don`t see a reason for Satan to create dosen martyrs in one swipe.

Moreso, I do not see a reason, why God would allow that to happen in any case. Satan is God`s creation as well - God created ALL.

______

Cobalt, in all fairness, any buddhist can say - "Of course, there is universal moral norm, it`s just that not everyone adheres to it." This "not everyone" would include you as well. Same goes for every other religion/philosophy, that has scriptures/lore.

______

I`m not particularly interested in beliefs. Yes, the philosophical ideas are faschinating topic, and I would like to discuss that... But what I am interested in, is practical implementations of those morals, and how to make sure that people adhering to different morals would be able to cohabitate without wasting away their lifes and resources on setting their disputes through wars.

______

You may notice, that most warlike are three Abrahamic religions. Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Each one waged more then one war and committed more then one atrocity for the sake of religion. Each one fought both others.

Modern followers of each of those religions will renounce that, of course. There are myriad excuses. "They were not true followers." seems to be most popular one.

However... THat does NOT interests me. I know, that religions were used as casus belli, and I want to know, what enabled all that. So I could make sure, that I take no part in that.